FSC MAY 20: RUSSIA RETURNS TO NAVAL CSBMS

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 06 USOSCE 000132 SENSITIVE SIPDIS STATE FOR VCI/CCA, VCI/NRRC, EUR/RPM, EUR/PRA, EUR/CARC, SCA/CEN, SCA/RA, PM/WRA, ISN/CPI JCS FOR J-5 OSD FOR ISA (PERENYI) NSC FOR HAYES USUN FOR LEGAL, POL EUCOM FOR J-5 CENTCOM FOR J-5 UNVIE FOR AC GENEVA FOR CD E.O. 12958: N/A TAGS: PARM PREL KCFE OSCE MD RS XG SUBJECT: FSC MAY 20: RUSSIA RETURNS TO NAVAL CSBMS ¶1. (SBU) Summary: Russia again proposed naval CSBMs and asked that they be included on the June 3 working group agenda. Code of Conduct expert Alexander Lambert praised the updated Code questionnaire but lamented the "imbalance" caused by additional questions related to terrorism. The decision on FSC contributions to the 2009 Annual Security Review Conference (ASRC) was adopted. Moldova charged that Russian peacekeeping forces in Transnistria lacked any legal basis and host nation consent, and violated Moldovan neutrality. Russia reminded that Moldova recently signed a joint declaration with Russia and the Transnistrian leader that supported a continuing Russian military presence. Russia also asserted that Moldova never withdrew from the 1992 agreement that authorized stationing of Russian peacekeeping forces in the Transnistrian conflict area. ¶2. (SBU) In the working groups, Azerbaijan and France disagreed on one of the political-military elements from the list the Forum is preparing for the ASRC. Support is widening for a meeting of heads of verification agencies on December 14 in conjunction with the annual information exchange. Several delegations expressed support for the guidelines proposed by Germany for Vienna Document inspection and evaluation briefings. Several delegations recommended that the review of the OSCE Document on Small Arms and Light Weapons, required by a 2008 ministerial decision, be linked to UN activities and consider new norm-setting. A 2007 proposal to hold an annual review of Code of Conduct implementation will be reconsidered. Germany, the original sponsor, claimed that review in the Annual Implementation Assessment Meeting was too little and too late, coming almost a year after the annual replies to the Code questionnaire. End summary. Russian Naval CSBMs Resurface -------------- ¶3. (SBU) Russia (Ulyanov) returned to its proposal at the 2009 Annual Implementation Assessment Meeting for a series of naval CSBMs that would include an information exchange on naval personnel and major weapons, prior notice of planned naval activities and provision for their observation, exchange of annual calendars, and contact visits with naval forces. Ulyanov said these proposals should be a priority for the FSC and would contribute to the security and stability of the OSCE area by extending the transparency of the CSBM regime to naval forces whose influence on strategic and regional stability is increasing. Ulyanov said these measures would apply "within the limited maritime space around Europe." ¶4. (SBU) Ulyanov noted that, as part of the Global Exchange of Military Information, participating States (pS) already provide information on the total number of surface combatants greater than 400 tons displacement and submarines over 50 tons. While his proposals would not change the displacement criteria, Ulyanov said additional information would be required for each warship and auxiliary vessel: - designation and subordination - type - displacement and major dimensions - designation of the naval base where ship is based - peacetime authorized personnel strength USOSCE 00000132 002 OF 006 Information would also be required on the total number of warships and auxiliaries in naval formations. The information would be submitted by December 15 to be valid as of the following January 1. Ulyanov noted the provenance of these proposals in the Vienna Document. He requested discussion of the proposals at the June 3 working group. (FSC.DEL/118/09/Corr.1) Praise for New Code Questionnaire -------------- ¶5. (SBU) Alexander Lambert, an academic expert on the Code of Conduct at the Geneva Center for Democratic Control of the Armed Forces, praised the recently adopted technical update to the Code of Conduct (FSC.DD/2/09). Lambert reviewed the changes to the 2003 version of the questionnaire, finding most of them improved the organization and were likely to enhance the responses from pS. Lambert welcomed the differentiation among the different components of the "security sector" (Code para 20) now found in question I.1.3, which refers to military, paramilitary, and security forces and police. He regretted the expansion of the question on counter-terrorism efforts, finding they distracted from attention to the intrastate elements of the Code addressing democratic control of the armed forces. ¶6. (SBU) Lambert supported the inclusion of a new question dealing with arms control, disarmament, and CSBMs (I.3) and said it added an "entirely new dimension" to the questionnaire. He found the inclusion of "conscripts" in the question on rights protection in the military (II.3.3) constituted a "significant expansion" of the questionnaire's coverage of human rights. ¶7. (SBU) Lambert recommended specifically identifying "intelligence services" in questions pertaining to terrorism. He also, in response to a question from Finland, recommended addressing the increasing role of private military and security companies, perhaps through question II.4.1 on the provision of training in international humanitarian law. As to the interface between international and domestic law and the military (Code paras 34-37) sections, Lambert said questions found in under II.4 of the 2009 questionnaire constituted a "small revolution" in politico-military affairs and "will help set new standards of conduct." (FSC.DEL/114/09) ¶8. (SBU) The EU, through the Czech presidency (Reinohlova), supported the updated questionnaire, but regretted the omission of a question soliciting information on the promotion of gender equality in security affairs as described in UN Security Council Resolution 1325. Turkey (Begec) and the U.S. (Neighbour) noted the questionnaire is derived from the Code and should not contain elements not found in the Code. Begec said it was not wise to question, as Lambert had, the added value of the questions on counter-terrorism given the many changes in the security environment since the Code was adopted in 1994. Neighbour, concurring, said the Code can be applied to new problems such as the struggle with terrorism and make the world safer without sacrificing fundamental principles. ¶9. (SBU) Russia (Ulyanov) said the update of the USOSCE 00000132 003 OF 006 questionnaire had been useful. The update, he said, helped to correct an imbalance between, on the one hand, arms control and CSBMs, and, on the other, the democratic control of armed forces on the other. He noted with approval the questions on implementation of arms control measures and on taking account of the security needs of other states. In a larger context, Ulyanov asserted, the Code is not the only priority of the FSC: arms control and CSBMs are also important. FSC Input to ASRC -------------- ¶10. (SBU) The Forum adopted without discussion the decision on FSC contributions to the 2009 Annual Security Review Conference (FSC.DEC/3/09). These are: a written and oral report on FSC activities by the FSC chair; an FSC Troika representative or the director of the Conflict Prevention Center will chair a working session; and a list of politico-military elements for discussion at the conference. List of Pol-Mil Elements -------------- ¶11. (SBU) In the working group, Russia (Ulyanov) suggested the list of politico-military elements for discussion at the ASRC (FSC.DEL/115/09) include "modernization" of the Vienna Document. France (Fournier) requested that "interstate conflicts and border security," presently listed under working session III on terrorism and related threats, be moved to working session I on conflict prevention. Azerbaijan (Jafarova),in response to France, reported "concern about the process" by which the list had been created and noted it had proposed the topic and believed it should remain in the terrorism session, as it had in 2007. The chair (Georgia, Giorgadze) noted the list was not a consensus document but promised to consider delegations' suggestions. Contacts BPG -------------- ¶12. (SBU) The UK (Gare) and Russia (Ulyanov),the co-sponsors of the draft Best Practices Guide on Vienna Document contact visits (FSC.AIAM/8/09),reported they were incorporating comments received from other delegations and will issue a revised draft. Switzerland and Sweden expressed support for the guide. HOV Meeting -------------- ¶13. (SBU) Denmark (Petersen),author of a draft decision to hold a meeting of heads of verifications agencies on December 14, 2009, in conjunction with the Annual Exchange of Military Information, reported wide support for the decision (FSC.DEL/107/09). Switzerland, Sweden, Finland, Russia, Greece and Norway announced support. Portugal said it would prefer the HOV meeting be held in conjunction with the Annual Implementation Assessment Meeting but would not block any consensus for a December meeting. The paper is now a chair's draft decision (FSC.DD/3/09). VD99 Inspection Briefing Guide -------------- USOSCE 00000132 004 OF 006 ¶14. (SBU) Germany (Schweizer),the author of a draft decision on guidelines for Vienna Document inspection and evaluation briefings (FSC.DEL/103/09),reported wide support based on informal conversations. Switzerland and Sweden announced support. Norway also reported support; it had even used the guidelines during a recent Russian inspection in Norway. ¶15. (SBU) Russia (Ulyanov) supported efforts to improve implementation, noting it "had done that too," and believed the draft was moving in the right direction. Ulyanov expected comments from Moscow in about three weeks. He was surprised, however, that the draft decision used the words "decides to encourage": that sounds, he said, more like a chair's statement than a decision. Something stronger will be needed, he said. ¶16. (SBU) Greece (Pediotis) proposed adding to guidelines para 1.1 "activity, time schedule, and transport plan." Greece also, in tic 3 of para 1.3, proposed substituting "designation and subordination of units" for "organization and deployment of the subordinate units." Schweizer said a revision will be prepared. SALW Review -------------- ¶17. (SBU) The chair of the Informal Group of Friends (IGOF) of Small Arms and Light Weapons (Germany, Schweizer) acknowledged comments from the U.S. and the CPC on his Food-for-Thought paper on implementing the 2008 ministerial decision to conduct a review of the OSCE Document on SALW (FSC.DEL/104/09). Switzerland supported the paper and recommended a decision be adopted before the summer recess at the end of July. France proposed UNIDIR be added to the list of other organizations to be included in the review process. Greece supported the thematic approach discussed in the paper. ¶18. (SBU) Russia (Ulyanov) expected detailed comments from Moscow at the end of June, but found it strange that the paper did not mention the "main" problem in SALW in recent years: the failure to prevent the transfer of arms to conflict regions. This must be the main focus of the review, Ulyanov said. ¶19. (SBU) Ireland (Donagh) said delegations would have to quickly develop a concrete agenda for the special meeting described in the paper. He suggested a series of briefings in the working group over the remaining weeks in the spring-summer session to address the OSCE concept of SALW, parallel efforts by other organizations, and the current effectiveness of implementation. ¶20. (SBU) Finland (Kangaste) recommended a pragmatic approach, aligned with the UN Program of Action on SALW, and that would consider brokering, marking and tracing, stockpile surpluses, and illicit air transport of SALW. A special meeting should consider the next steps on implementation, alignment with UN programs, and norm-setting. ¶21. (SBU) The UK (Hartnell) agreed that realistic goals were important given the limited time. The major aim of the review should be to assess implementation of the SALW USOSCE 00000132 005 OF 006 document while avoiding the creation of additional burdens not based on the document. Schweizer, responding to Hartnell, replied that the ministerial mandate was to "review the document, not implementation." He supported Ireland's suggestion of a series of briefing, and volunteered to provide the first, on the OSCE concept of SALW, as early as May 27. He preferred use of the working group at 56 to explore the various proposals rather than smaller informal meetings. ¶22. (SBU) Schweizer noted that, as IGOF chair, he could not propose a draft decision: it was for the delegations to develop concrete proposals that could respond to identified needs. In an oblique response to U.S. comments on his paper, Schweizer noted that his "Way Ahead" section called for new norms on stockpile management, marking and tracing, export controls, and even end-use certificates; OSCE Best Practices Guides were not sufficient as they were not politically binding decisions. In response to requests from some delegations, Schweizer called on the CPC to develop a list of relevant documents needed for the review. Code of Conduct -------------- ¶23. (SBU) Germany (Schweizer) proposed returning to its 2007 paper on an annual assessment of implementation of the Code of Conduct (FSC.DEL/434/07/Corr.1). Schweizer said assessment of the Code by the AIAM, normally held in March, had been inadequate and came too long after the annual responses to the Code questionnaire in April. ¶24. (SBU) Russia (Ulyanov) countered that a better approach would be a new review conference as the last was in 1999. While Russia will consider the proposal, it struck Ulyanov as strange to focus on the Code of Conduct when there were so many other areas of stagnation. Here was, he concluded, too much focus on the Code. Schweizer recalled that the 2005 review of the Code could not reach agreement o hold a review conference but recommended that review of its implementation could take place "at other meetings." While the Code routinely appeared on the AIAM agenda, it was usually eclipsed by the Vienna Document. Moldova Objects to Russian PKF -------------- ¶25. (SBU) Moldova (Cuc),referring to the Russia response to the Code of Conduct questionnaire on forces stationed abroad, denied that the 1992 agreement on peaceful settlement of the Transnistrian conflict or the 1994 agreements on the legal status and withdrawal of Russian forces in Moldova provide a legal basis for the continued Russian military presence. The 1992 agreement concerned the cease-fire but did not envisage any status for Russian forces and the two 1994 agreements never entered into force. Russia's continuing presence violates the neutrality of Moldova, which never consented to the Russian military presence. ¶26. (SBU) Russia (Ulyanov) noted that Moldova never withdrew from the 1992 agreement, which includes provisions for Russian peacekeeping forces (PKF). Under a 1992 protocol, Russia has the right to station up to six battalions of PKF in the conflict area, although Russian actual presence is USOSCE 00000132 006 OF 006 considerably less. Ulyanov closed by recalling that only three months ago Moldova's president, Voronin, had signed a joint declaration with Russian president Medvedev and Transnistrian leader Smirnov that stressed the stabilizing role of the PKF. Ulyanov said Cuc's comments were perplexing and subject to doubt as they were contradicted by Voronin's actions. Next Meeting -------------- ¶27. (SBU) The FSC will next meet on May 27. Scott